Lawmakers Urging Significant Cuts in Defense Spending

Featured Author:

GovExec.com

GovernmentExecutive.com is government's business news daily and the premier Web site for federal managers and executives. Government Executive in its print incarnation is a biweekly business magazine serving senior executives and managers in the federal government's departments and agencies.

Our subscribers are high-ranking civilian and military officials who are responsible for defending the nation and carrying out the many laws that define the government's role in our economy and society. Visit GovExec.com.

More articles from this author:

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Friday urged the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility to take a hard look a military spending as the panel weighs options for reducing the nation’s growing budget deficit.

Specifically, the legislators backed a list of cuts outlined in a new report by the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a diverse group of experts the lawmakers convened.

The task force report identified $960 billion in savings that could be generated over the next decade by reducing unneeded weapons systems, cutting personnel and infrastructure, and reforming military health care, among other proposals.

In a letter to members of the fiscal responsibility commission, Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Ron Paul, R-Texas; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; noted that while they hold different views about the course of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, “none of us propose in any way to give our troops in the field anything less than everything they need.”

At a press conference Friday, Frank said, “The four of us strongly believe that unless there is a substantial reduction in American military spending over a 10-year period — close to slightly over a trillion dollars — you simply cannot deal with deficit reduction in a way that is economically and socially responsible.”

The task force made recommendations in six areas: strategic forces; conventional force structure; procurement, research and development; personnel; maintenance and logistics; and infrastructure. Task force members focused their analysis on programs judged to be based on unproven or unreliable technologies, missions with poor cost-benefit ratios, assets and capabilities that over-match existing threats and management reform.

The task force report noted that federal discretionary spending has nearly doubled since 2001, and more than one-third of that increase is attributed to the Pentagon budget, excluding the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“At a time of growing concern over federal deficits, all elements of the budget must be subjected to careful scrutiny,” said Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, which coordinated the task force’s efforts. “The Pentagon should be no exception.”

The lawmakers’ letter to the commissioners noted the United States operates 460 military installations in more than 38 countries, excluding those in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Given that every incremental federal dollar spent today is being financed with borrowed funds, maintaining that collection of overseas bases results in a perverse daisy chain of borrowing money from foreigners, spending those borrowed funds overseas, then sending never-ending interest payments back overseas as we roll over that debt again and again,” the House members said.

“It is not realistic for a nation with limited resources to be expected to shoulder the defense burden of the entire planet. Yet American military spending today makes up approximately 44 percent of worldwide defense expenditures,” the letter said.